Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

Laura Poitras
Documentary Filmmaker and The Intercept Co-Founder
CSPAN 04/05/2014
Poitras: I do think that, the thing that has been positive in terms of Snowden’s disclosures is it's reawakened an adversarial press, and the people have been shocked that these things, these decisions about surveillance have been made completely in secret, completely without public debate. And that there does seem to be some kind of an awakening, but I wouldn't call it a shift of the pendulum.
Barton Gellman
Journalist, contributing to the Washington Post
CSPAN 04/05/2014
Gellman: The crucial thing that's happened here is an increase in transparency. Obviously information is power. Secrecy is very great power especially when coupled with surveillance (makes us transparent and yourself opaque in government?). Because of this transparency you've seen not only journalism building on itself, but all kind of other things happen in the private sector, you have now for the first time in my memory a real marketplace for privacy. There were small outposts of that before, but they were boutiques. you now have large companies competing to demonstrate to consumers because consumers are worried about their privacy, because these revelations.
Glenn Greenwald
Co-Founder The Intercept
CSPAN 04/05/2014
Greenwald: I think Daniel Ellsberg is the most constructive example. Because in modern times, he’s universally, or not perhaps universally, but wildly considered to be heroic. If you invoke Daniel Ellsberg and point out that he’s a defender of Edward Snowden, almost nobody will attack Daniel Ellsberg. As a means to responding they’ll try to distinguish the two. But if you go and look at how Daniel Ellsberg wins talked about a 1971 and 1972 and through that decade, the court, the government, the media, and by most Americans, he was talked about in exactly the same terms as Edward Snowden. And over time he got so vindicated. And I think history so appreciated the information that he let us know about, what the government was doing, all that sort of died away and we realized that he engaged in an incredibly heroic and self-sacrificing act that he didn’t need to do for the public good, and I am convinced that Edward Snowden already today around the world is very much viewed in those terms
Jordan Robertson
Technology writer at Bloomberg News
BLOOMBERG 04/11/2014
Robertson: The story that Bloomberg broke today indicates that the NSA has not only known about the Heartbleed bug for two years since it was introduced, but it has exploited it for the last two years to steal information on internet users. The revelation comes in a week where internet companies have scrambled to upgrade their infrastructure to protect against these very kinds of attacks. So there’s a lot of animosity out there today about the NSA and the fact that they knew about this serious security bug and kept it for themselves. Fox: What has been the response from lawmakers and from the NSA? Start wherever you want in Washington. Robertson: The NSA hasn't commented on the story. But this has generated quite a lot of interest.
Cory Johnson
Anchor and editor-at-large for Bloomberg Television
BLOOMBERG 04/11/2014
Johnson: We actually just got a statement from the NSA and from the NSC. And I want to read it. But not the whole thing. Really quickly. The NSA , however, is denying that they knew about this until it was made in private sector cyber security reports. And the NSC, the National Security Council, say reports that NSA or any other part of the government were aware of the so called Heartbleed vulnerability before 2014 of April , 2014 are wrong. So the NSA denying it. Bloomberg News sticking with the story. So we’ll keep digging into that.
Cory Johnson
Anchor and editor-at-large for Bloomberg Television
BLOOMBERG 04/11/2014
Johnson: The disconcerting thing about this story, now again the NSA has denied this, but as a Bloomberg story and Bloomberg is sticking with it. And I think that the disconcerting thing is here, is what is the job of the NSA? And who are they protecting us from? And who are they not protecting us from? Are they willing to let our wallets get stolen, but to keep us safe from terrorists? Is that a decision that someone made along the line. That’s the really disconcerting thing about this story and something I think that’s going to be examined here as we sort through both the denials and the facts of the story.
Amy Goodman
Host and Executive Producer for Democracy Now
LINKTV 04/14/2014
Goodman: (10 months ago, Laura) Poitras and Glenn Greenwald flew from New York to Hong Kong to meet National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. Since then, there've published a trove of stories exposing the NSA and the national surveillance state. Poitras and Greenwald did not return to the United States until this past Friday when they flew from Berlin to New York to accept the George Polk Award for National Security Reporting. They flew and not knowing if they would be detained or subpoenaed by the U.S. government. In January, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described analysts working on the NSA story as “Snowden’s accomplices." in February, Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, accused Glenn Greenwald of selling stolen goods are reporting stories on the NSA documents. Greenwald and Poitras were accompanied by an ACLU attorney.
Amy Goodman
Host and Executive Producer for Democracy Now
LINKTV 04/14/2014
Goodman: At the George Polk Awards ceremony Friday, Poitras and Greenwald were joined by their colleagues Ewen MacAskill of "The Guardian" and Barton Gelman of "The Washington Post," who share the award with them.
John Seigenthaler
Host of Al Jazeera America News
ALJAZAM 04/15/2014
Seigenthaler: Two major newspapers, The Guardian, and the "Washington Post" have won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for their reports on the NSA. Those reports were based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. The Pulitzer board said the stories helped spark a debate on the relationship between the USA government, surveillance and privacy. In a statement Snowden said the award is a vindication for everyone who believes that the public has a role in government .
Amy Goodman
Host and Executive Producer for Democracy Now
LINKTV 04/15/2014
Goodman: "The Guardian, U.S." and Washington Post," have won a Pulitzer Prize for their stores exposing NSA surveillance. Handing out the award for Public Service Journalism, the Pulitzer Committee said the disclosure of mass spying –“helped spark debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy. The reporting was based on the leaks of whistleblower Edward Snowden who shared NSA files with journalist Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Barton Gellman. The group also won a George Polk Journalism Award on Friday. In a statement, Snowden honored the journalist involved saying “This decision reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can…Their work has given us a better future and a more accountable democracy.” he said.
Katty Kay
Anchor, BBC World News America
MSNBCW 04/15/2014
Kay: So there you have the guardian and "The Washington Post" getting the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service from the Columbia School of Journalism. And the controversy is over as you say, did they support somebody who is effectively treasonous. A traitor to America. The counter-argument that is made by the Pulitzer Board is that they are doing the best journalism around. They are not part of Snowden's story. They are reporting Snowden's story. And that is why they've been given this. They came across and were given access to this incredible story. And whatever you think of Snowden, I think, we would all recognize that we would not be having the debate about NSA surveillance that we’ve had in this country over the past year had it not been for the reporting on Snowden's story. And that’s the argument from Pulitzer. Scarborough: Okay. And obviously had an extraordinary impact.
Edward Snowden
whistleblower
ALJAZAM 04/17/2014
Sharp: Former U.S. spy contractor, Edward Snowden having his first known public conversation with Vladimir Putin. Snowden: Does Russia intercept, store or analyze in any way, the communications of millions of individuals? Putin: Mr. Snowden you are a former agent, and in the past I have something to do with intelligence. So we will talk between ourselves as professionals. Sharp: Putin’s refusal to hand over Snowden back in June severely strained ties with the United States. And with the deadlock over Ukraine, only getting worse, that relationship with Washington is unlikely to improve. Peter Sharp, al Jazeera, Moscow.
Amy Goodman
Host and Executive Producer for Democracy Now
LINKTV 04/22/2014
Goodman: The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper has issued a sweeping order barring agencies under his watch from almost all unauthorized contact with the media. The ban applies to discussion of all intelligence related matters, whether they are classified or not. Violators face a minimum security violation and potential prosecution. Clapper's directive comes just months after he told the senate he would seek to "lean in the direction of transparency, wherever and whenever we can."
Jesselyn Radack
Edward Snowden's Attorney. Whistleblower & Former Justice. Dept. Ethics Advisor
CSPAN 04/23/2014
Scheer: What is your view about people saying hey he cut and ran. Jesselyn Radack: My view is that it speaks volumes that the only safe way to blow the whistle right now if you are in national security or intelligence and know that level of information that Snowden did., the only safe way is to blow the whistle from another country. And that’s is a sorry state of affairs for this country to be in. My other NSA whistleblowers, right after Snowden revealed himself, had a press conference to say that they all supported him and understood why he had to go to another country to make those disclosures.
Daniel Ellsberg
Author of "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"
CSPAN 04/23/2014
Ellsberg: Snowden, I believe, looked at these examples, looked at Thom Drake’s example, he looked at Chelsea Manning, he looked at Julian Assange what was going after him, and realized that he had to be out of the country if he was going to put up this amount of information and be able to tell what he had done and why he had done it and to comment as he has been doing to speak now. I was personally 40 years ago, able to speak. I was out on bail, on bond throughout my trial. And I was able to speak to demonstrations and lectures and this and that. There isn’t a chance in the world that Snowden, I think, would have been allowed to do that, as he knew, from looking at Chelsea Manning. He would be in an isolation cell like Chelsea for the rest of his life, essentially. No journalist to this day, 3.5 years almost 4 years now, after this stuff came out No journalist has spoken to Chelsea Manning.
Daniel Ellsberg
Author of "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"
CSPAN 04/23/2014
Ellsberg: No journalist to this day, 3.5 years almost 4 years now, after this stuff came out No journalist has spoken to Chelsea Manning. No journalist has spoken to Chelsea Manning, not in four years. No interviews no nothing. And they won’t either. They are not allowed to speak him in prison now. So Snowden more or less had to be out of the country. He learned from that. He also learned that you need to put out a lot of documents, that they should be current documents. And all the more reason he had to be out.
Daniel Ellsberg
Author of "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"
CSPAN 04/23/2014
Ellsberg: I identify with Snowden completely. And I identify with Chelsea Manning, with all the differences in our background and our personalities and whatever. I identify with them very strongly. I feel that they went over the same trajectory that I did. They acted for much the same reason. They did what I would have done in their circumstance and so forth. And so when it’s patriots or traitors, I realize I’m back explaining why I don’t think I’m a traitor. If they’re not a traitor, if they’re a traitor, where am i? I've been saying for three years now, Chelsea Manning and now Snowden is no more a traitor than I am -- and I find that I have to say, and I am not, to make that very clear. The fact is it has taken me back 40 years. I kind of got out of fearing that question all the time. But I did hear it a lot at the beginning with reporters asking and they were saying how does it feel to be regarded as a traitor. by the way, i was not charged in court. It happens that the constitution narrows the legal definition of traitor very significantly.
Barack Obama
President
CSPAN 05/02/2014
Obama: it has pained me to see the degree to which the Snowden disclosures have created strains in the relationship. But more broadly, I've also been convinced for a very long time that it is important for our legal structures and our policy structures to catch up with rapidly advancing technologies. And as a consequence through a series of, you know, steps, what we try to do is reform what we do and have taken these issues very seriously. Domestically we tried to provide additional assurances to the American people that their privacy is protected.
Barack Obama
President
CSPAN 05/02/2014
Obama: But what I've also done is taken the unprecedented step of ordering our intelligence communities to take the privacy interests of non-U.S. persons into account in everything that they do. Something that's not been done before and most other countries in the world do not do. What I've said is that the privacy interests of non-U.S. citizens are deeply relevant and have to be taken into account and we have to have policies and procedures to protect them, not just U.S. persons. And we are in the process of implementing a whole series of those steps. We have shared with the Germans the things that we are doing.
Barack Obama
President
CSPAN 05/02/2014
Obama: I will repeat what I've said before, that ordinary Germans are not subject to continual surveillance, are not subject to a whole range of bulk data gathering. I know that the perceptions I think among the public sometimes are that the United States has capacities similar to what you see on movies and in television. The truth of the matter is, is that our focus is principally and primarily on how do we make sure that terrorists, those who want to proliferate weapons, transnational criminals, are not able to engage in the activities that they're engaging in. And in that, we can only be successful if we're partnering with friends like Germany. We won't succeed if we're doing that on our own.
Barack Obama
President
CSPAN 05/02/2014
Obama: So what I’ve pledged to Chancellor Merkel has been in addition to the reforms that we've already taken, in addition to saying that we are going to apply privacy standards to how we deal with non-U.S. persons as well as U.S. persons, in addition to the work that we're doing to constrain the potential use of bulk data, we are committed to a U.S.-German cyber dialogue to close further the gaps that may exist in terms of how we operate, how German intelligence operates to make sure that there's transparency and clarity about what we're doing and what our goals and our intentions are.
Barack Obama
President
CSPAN 05/02/2014
Obama: These are complicated issues and, you know, we're not perfectly aligned yet, but we share the same values and we share the same concerns. You know, this is something that is deeply important to me and I'm absolutely committed that by the time I leave this office, we're going to have a stronger legal footing and international framework for how we are doing -- how we're doing business in the intelligence sphere. I will say, though, that I don't think that there is an inevitable contradiction between our security and safety and our privacy.
Glenn Greenwald
Co-Founder The Intercept
KNTV 05/12/2014
Snow: Glenn Greenwald has a new book revealing more allegations of widespread surveillance by NSA employees. Greenwald: Internally when they thought they were talking in private they boast about the fact that they are a system of ubiquitous spying, collecting all forms of communication between everybody on the planet. Snow: This never-before-seen power point slide from the NSA says sniff it all, know it all, collect it all. And with this secret form, Greenwald says any NSA employee can search a giant database. Greenwald: All they need to do literally is enter the e-mail address, pick from a pulldown menu, a “justification” that entitles them to do it and then hit search. Snow: Greenwald writes the NSA had been able to tap into skype video chats, a broad range of facebook data, even e-mails sent by people using wifi on an airplane. Greenwald: The mindset of the NSA is that there should never be a place on the planet that you can go where you are able to evade their surveillance net.
Glenn Greenwald
Co-Founder The Intercept
KNTV 05/12/2014
Snow: An internal NSA newsletter brags that shipments of computer routers and servers headed all over the world are intercepted by the NSA and redirected to a secret location so they can implant surveillance devices. No way of knowing how widespread this is? Greenwald: We know that it's systematic. That there are divisions in the NSA and teams in the NSA devoted to doing this. Snow: The NSA says the implication that NSA’s foreign intelligence collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false. NSA's activities are focused on valid foreign intelligence targets. Greenwald says he still has thousands of documents and plans to reveal more on the intercept, a digital magazine whose parent company has a collaboration agreement with NBC News. Greenwald: Several of the top, say, 5 or 10 are stories that are left to be told. Ones that will really shock the world.
Gwen Ifill
Co-Anchor and Managing Editor, PBS NewsHour
KQED 05/13/2014
Ifill: Europe's highest court has issued a ruling that could shake up the search-engine industry. The court said that in some cases, Google must remove personal information from search results linked to someone's name, if the person requests it. A Spanish man had found his name still linked to debts from 1998. One of the judges said privacy is paramount. Judge da Cruz Vilaça: ( translated ): as the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public. It should be held that those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in finding that information. Ifill: The ruling is not subject to appeal. In the U.S., some limited search deletions are already required, especially regarding crimes by minors. But it's up to the site that published the information, not the search engine, to remove the link.
Barton Gellman
Journalist, contributing to the Washington Post
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: On October 4, in a secret signing with Cheney, the president officially authorized "The Program." Gellman: That order is written by David Addington, the vice president's lawyer. It's not written by the president's lawyer. And this is not only unusual but probably unique in the history of major U.S. intelligence operations: it's written by the Vice President's lawyer and stored in his own safe. Narrator: Addington worked out of a small office next to the White House in the old Executive Office Building. Baker: This order is one of the most closely kept secrets of the Bush/Cheney administration for four years. It's kept so secret that many people involved in national security inside the White House and the government don't know about it.
Robert Deitz
NSA General Counsel, 1998-2006
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: Now General Hayden wanted the sign-off of his top lawyer, Robert Deitz. Deitz: I think he was concerned and wanted my view of whether this program was lawful. I spent a kind of sleepless night pondering the legality of it. This was a very hard call. It was a very hard call. Gellman: The NSA has a general counsel and about 100 lawyers. And they were told, "The President has signed it, it's been certified as lawful, and once all the signatures are there, that's it, we salute. We say, 'Okay, it's lawful, we're going to go ahead.'" Deitz: In the intel world, if a president says to you, "I need this in order to keep the American people safe," you need to try to figure out where that line is constitutionally and march right up to it.
Jane Mayer
Staff Writer for The New Yorker
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: But according to the rules Drake thought he had to follow, whatever he found had to safeguard Americans' privacy. He started by digging around inside the deepest reaches of the NSA's secret R&D programs. Mayer: And he stumbles into sort of a skunkworks, and he discovers that there was actually a program before 9/11 that could have, as they said, eavesdropped on the entire world. It's called ThinThread. Narrator: ThinThread, a program that could capture and sort massive amounts of phone and email data, was the brainchild of veteran crypto-mathematician Bill Binney. Binney: The whole idea was to build networks around the world of everybody and who they communicate with. Then you could isolate all the groups of terrorists. Once you could do that, you could use that metadata to select the information from all those tens of terabytes going by.
Jane Mayer
Staff Writer for The New Yorker
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: But to make sure the NSA would not spy on U.S. citizens, Binney and the other analysts had built in privacy protections. Mayer: It anonymizes who it's listening in on, unless there's a court warrant that makes the identity of that person clear. Drake: If you knew that it was U.S. person-related, it would be automatically encrypted. That was part of the design of ThinThread. Wiebe: It had a data privacy section. That was working very well, protecting citizens and innocent people by encrypting the data and not allowing analysts to look at it even. Narrator: Drake was ecstatic. The experimental program could monitor massive amounts of data, but the encryption would protect the privacy of individual Americans. He took it upstairs to the top deck.
Jack Goldsmith
Office of Legal Counsel, 2003-2005
KQED 05/13/2014
Goldsmith: The program was an example of the administration going it alone in secret based on inadequate legal reasoning and flawed legal opinions. Narrator: Goldsmith discovered that as part of the program, the government had been tracking data about the emails of tens of millions of Americans. Gellman: He said, "You can't justify the email collection. It is, on its face, a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and perhaps the 1st Amendment as well." Narrator: Addington was furious that Goldsmith would raise questions about "The Program," and he let him know. Goldsmith: He was very tough in making his arguments. He was very sarcastic and aggressive against people with whom he disagreed, and dismissive oftentimes. And he acted with the implicit blessing of the vice president. So all of these things made him a very, very forceful presence.
Peter Baker
White House Correspondent and Newspaper Reporter, The New York Times
KQED 05/13/2014
Baker: Goldsmith tells him, "We're going to pull back our endorsement of the legality of this program." And Addington roars at him and says, "If you do that, the blood of 100,000 people killed in the next attack will be on your head." Narrator: For Cheney, Addington, Gonzales, Hayden and others, the personal stakes at this moment were extremely high. Gellman: It was a felony to conduct this kind of surveillance in the United States. And everyone was relying on the shield that they were trying to create of having the president order it explicitly and have the attorney general sign off and say, "It's lawful." And as soon as the Justice Department starts to say, "We're not so sure this is lawful," there is a great deal of concern and anxiety.
Peter Baker
White House Correspondent and Newspaper Reporter, The New York Times
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: Goldsmith's boss, deputy attorney general James Comey, delivered the news to John Ashcroft: parts of the program appeared to be illegal. Baker: They go to the attorney general, John Ashcroft. They say, "We don't think this is legal. We think we need to get this changed. We need to stop what's going on because we don't have a solid foundation to go on." Narrator: Ashcroft was supposed to sign a reauthorization of the entire program every 45 days, and for two and a half years, he had. But now he balked. Gellman: Ashcroft gives Comey his verbal assurance that he is not going to go along with this program and that he is going to demand changes or he won't sign. Narrator: Then just hours later, Attorney General Ashcroft collapsed, suffering from severe pancreatitis.
Barton Gellman
Journalist, contributing to the Washington Post
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: James Comey was now the acting Attorney General. Gellman: Comey notifies the White House formally that he's not going to sign, and we're now within 48 hours of expiration of this program. Narrator: With the deadline looming inside the White House, Alberto Gonzales, chief of staff Andrew Card and David Addington headed to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room. Gonzales: We went to the West Wing, picked up David, who had the authorization. We get to the hospital and I tell David to stay back because there was history between David and the Attorney General and I didn't want to aggravate the Attorney General needlessly. Gellman: Janet Ashcroft, the Attorney General's wife, is very alarmed. She calls up Ashcroft's chief of staff and says, "Oh my God, they're coming over."
Jack Goldsmith
Office of Legal Counsel, 2003-2006
KQED 05/13/2014
Card: I said nothing other than, "Sorry you're feeling bad." And Judge Gonzales said, "We have brought the document. Here is the document." Goldsmith: Attorney General Ashcroft kind of lifted himself. He arose from the bed, lifted himself up and gave about a two- or three-minute speech or talk addressed to Gonzales and Card, in which he basically... I can't get into the details, but he showed enormous, unbelievable clarity about what the issues were and what was going on. And he explained why he also would not approve the program. And he read them a bit of the riot act, and then he said... At the end of all this, he said, "In any event, I'm not the Attorney General now. Jim Comey is," because Jim Comey was the acting Attorney General. And with that extraordinary performance-- and it was just amazing, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in my life, because he went from seeming,
Jack Goldsmith
Office of Legal Counsel, 2003-2007
KQED 05/13/2014
Goldsmtih: And with that extraordinary performance-- and it was just amazing, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in my life, because he went from seeming, you know, near death to having this moment, this amazing moment of clarity-- and he just again receded into the bed, and I really worried at that point that he was going to expire. And I mean, it just... it looked like he gave it the last of his energy. Gonzales: And so finally, when he repeats again he's no longer the attorney general and is finished talking, Andy and I just said, "Thank you, we'll raise this with the deputy attorney general," and we left. Goldsmith: It was an intense, unbelievable scene. And Gonzales and Card quickly left, and that was the end of it.
Barton Gellman
Journalist, contributing to the Washington Post
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: In the wake of the hospital confrontation, at the White House, Cheney insisted the president should act on his own: reauthorize all of the program even though the Justice Department said part of it was illegal. Gellman: Cheney and David Addington draft a new order. And this time, it has one subtle difference. Instead of having a signature page for the Attorney General, "I certify the lawfulness of this order," there's a new signature for the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who does not have the same legal authority. Gonzales: I satisfied myself that there was sufficient legal authority to move forward. And I felt that the President was not a lawyer, and that it was my job, if I felt comfortable that it was in fact lawful, to provide that signature. I did it because I wanted to protect the President. That's why I signed that document.
Michael Hayden
Former Director of the NSA and Director of the CIA
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: But the White House wondered, "Would General Hayden go out on a legal limb and continue the program?" Hayden: David Addington calls me and says, "Are you willing to do this without the signature of the Attorney General? With the signature of White House counsel Al Gonzales and authorization from the president?" And I thought and I said, "Yes." Narrator: Hayden and Gonzales say their willingness was informed by something that happened just before the Addington call. (explosions) Audio of TV reports: In Madrid this morning, more than 190 people were killed... After at least ten simultaneous bomb blasts... Narrator: It was one of the worst terrorist attacks since September 11. Series of bomb attacks at three train stations during... Hayden: Given that starkness of the al Qaeda threat and given the ambiguity of the situation, I thought the correct operational, legal and ethical decision was, "All right, we'll do this one more time
Jack Goldsmith
Office of Legal Counsel, 2003-2007
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: That afternoon, President Bush reauthorized the program. At the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith prepared his resignation letter. Goldsmith: I had drafted my resignation letter and was prepared to resign, and I was sure I was going to resign that day. It was inconceivable to me, based on what had happened the last two days, that I wouldn't resign. Narrator: Dozens of top DOJ officials threatened to join him, including FBI Director Mueller and even Acting Attorney General Comey. Comey's letter of resignation: "And I would never be part of something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong. With a heavy heart and undiminished love of my country and my department, I resign as deputy attorney general of the United States, effective immediately. Sincerely yours, James B. Comey."
George W Bush
President 2000-2008
KQED 05/13/2014
Gellman: nearly the entire political appointment list at the Justice Department, from the attorney general on down (would resign). And no president could survive that in an election year. Narrator: The next morning, the President decided to have a private talk with Acting Attorney General Comey. Gellman: After the national security briefing, Bush says to Comey, "Stay a minute. Come talk to me." And Cheney starts to follow, and Bush says, "No, no, this is just the two of us." And he says, "What's going on here? How could you possibly do something of this importance at the very last minute?" Comey suddenly realizes that the president had no idea what had been happening. The president thinks this just began yesterday. He doesn't know it's been going on for three months. And so he says, "Mr. President, if that's what you've been told, you have been very poorly served by your advisors."
George W Bush
President 2000-2009
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: The President then sent for FBI Director Mueller. Gellman: Mueller is waiting downstairs a level, outside the Situation Room. Some aide goes and says, "The President wants to see you right now, get in there." And Bush says to Mueller, "Go tell Jim Comey to fix this. I withdraw the order. You go make it right." Narrator: The warrantless email data collection was shut down. The crisis was averted. But at the White House, they were determined to resume it. Lizza: And so they're sort of sifting through the FISA law, they're sifting through the Patriot Act trying to find existing laws, existing authorities, you might call it loopholes, to justify these programs.
Michael Hayden
Former Director of the NSA and Director of the CIA
KQED 05/13/2014
Hayden: Could we get a court order to authorize this? And so we began a very aggressive program with the chief judge of the FISA Court at that time, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, to take that part of the program that had been stopped and present it to her to see if we could get an order to allow that program to go forward. Lizza: Hayden personally meets with Judge Kotelly of the FISA Court on two Saturdays to make the pitch, to explain how they are going to do this. And Kotelly eventually rules that this is legal: that the NSA can indeed collect all of the Internet metadata going to and from the United States. And they used this authority that previously was used to trace numbers going to and from a single telephone... for everybody.
George W Bush
President 2000-2008
KQED 05/13/2014
Audio TV reporting: Bush on day two of his tour to defend the Patriot Act, this time in Buffalo, New York... In Buffalo, he continued his push for an extension of the anti-terror law... Narrator: That same year, the president hit the campaign trail, publicly arguing there was no warrantless surveillance program. Bush: Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. Lichtblau: Bush got up there several times and said, "When you hear about us wiretapping, that means we're getting a court warrant." Well, we knew that wasn't true. He was leaving out this whole other side of the equation in terms of the NSA operation. Bush: It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. Thank you for coming.
James Risen
NYT National Security Journalist
KQED 05/13/2014
Lichtblau: It was a bit shocking, not only that he was calling him, but also that he got Hayden on the line. Risen: I read him, like, two paragraphs of the draft of the story. Risen’s story: "Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others..." Risen: And you could hear, like, a sharp intake of breath, like... (gasps) You know, it was almost like he was... He didn't want to say it, but he was like, "I can't believe you got that story." Hayden: I think this is a very bad thing. There is a reason we keep intelligence sources and methods secret. It's the same reason journalists try to keep their sources and methods secret. You know, you can't survive unless you keep them secret. Risen: I'd caught him off guard, and he had started to confirm it, and then realized what he was doing, and hung up.
Bill Keller
Executive Editor, The New York Times, 2003-2011
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: (In the fall of 2004) Executive Editor Bill Keller met with the President's top advisors: Condoleezza Rice, General Hayden, Alberto Gonzales and others, who insisted to Keller that revealing the existence of the program would endanger national security. Keller: I had a consensus of everybody that we had contact with in the administration that this would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. These were serious people, a consensus across the board of those who talked to us that it was going to be dangerous, a level of stridency that was quite impressive. And after much discussion, decided that we weren't ready to go with it. Narrator: Keller spiked the story. The White House had prevailed. The program would remain a well-kept secret.
James Risen
NYT National Security Journalist
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: It had been nearly one year since the New York Times had refused to publish the investigation into the NSA. During that year, "The Program" had grown dramatically. Terabytes-- huge amounts of information about Americans' telephone calls and emails-- had been clandestinely captured. Finally, reporter James Risen from the New York Times had had enough. He decided to strike out on his own. Risen: The story was dead now, twice dead, and I thought the only way to ever get this story out was to put it in a book. Narrator: Risen had a surprise for Eric Lichtblau. He invited him to drive over to his house to read a draft chapter of the book: the story the New York Times had refused to print.
James Risen
NYT National Security Journalist
KQED 05/13/2014
Lichtblau: The chapter was just called "The Program." And in it, he basically made known the existence of this program and the fact that the administration had gotten the paper to spike the story. Risen: I said, "I want to make sure it's okay with you." He said, "The only thing I ask is that you put my name in there, too." Narrator: It did not take long for the editors at the New York Times to get word of what Risen was planning. Taubman: I began to hear through the grapevine that he might include the NSA story in the book. So that led to a series of, you know, very awkward conversations with Jim. Risen: The editors were furious at me. They thought I was being insubordinate. Lichtblau: He had a gun to their head. They're really being forced to reconsider. The paper's gonna look pretty bad.
Bill Keller
Executive Editor, The New York Times, 2003-2011
KQED 05/13/2014
Narrator: The President then played his trump card, threatening that the New York Times would be responsible for the next attack. Keller: He said, you know, "Listen, if you guys publish this article and there is another 9/11, we're going to be called before Congress to explain how we failed to prevent it, and you should be in the chair beside us explaining, because you'll be complicit in allowing damage to our country." He was saying, in effect, "You, Arthur Sulzberger, will have blood on your hands if there's another attack that could've been prevented by this program." I think anybody would feel goosebumps.
George W Bush
President 2000-2008
KQED 05/13/2014
Bush: I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.Narrator: It was the least controversial and smallest element of the program. There was no reference to the massive gathering of domestic communications data. Gellman: His characterization of the facts was simply wrong. And it was wrong from the beginning. The program wasn't to surveil known suspects, known conspirators. You could easily get a warrant for that. The program was to sift big data. It was to trawl through enormous volumes, literally trillions of telephone calls, trillions of emails, and to look for unknown conspirators.
Diane Roark
Staff, House Intelligence Committee, 1985-2003
KQED 05/13/2014
Roark: General Hayden's press conference introduced many of the tactics that the administration has used to deflect questioning and also to mislead the public. I was amazed at what he was saying, because it was not truthful; it was misleading. And that was the beginning of the spinning and the lies.
Glenn Greenwald
Co-Founder The Intercept
ALJAZAM 05/14/2014
Greenwald: There's a huge, huge difference, fundamental difference between having the single company collect the information about you that they’re able to know when you use. their service. And Google can collect your Google searches. Yahoo can collect your Yahoo emails. And it's all divided and fragmented in the hands of these companies. Versus having the United States government systematically collect in a centralized way everything there is to know about you on line. There's a difference between corporate and government power. It’s the government can put you into prison, that can take your property and even that can kill you. Which is why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution can limits what the government can do because we look to government and state powers as being threatening.
Showing 1051 through 1100 of 1379
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28